JUDGMENT
Y.B. Bhatt, J.
1. The pertinent and relevant facts in brief leading to the present petition are as under:
2. The petitioner was running a Shri Rang Touring Cinema at village Umalla in Jhagadia Taluka of Bharuch District and at the relevant point of time, was holding an appropriate licence issued in that regard under the provisions of the Bombay Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1953 read with the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954. The licence originally issued to the petitioner was dated 9th November, 1981 and was for the validly period of one year. According to the petitioner, this licence was renewed from time to time and ultimately expired on 31st December, 1986. Although there is a some controversy as to whether it expired on 31st December, 1986 or on 30th June, 1987, this is a minor aspect which does not affect the merits of the case.
3. At the relevant point of time, when the licence was about to expire on 31st December, 1986, the Licensing Authority wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 20th December, 1986 (at Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) pointing out that the licence was due to expire on 31st December, 1986 and calling upon the petitioner to apply for renewal, annexing with the renewal application the necessary documents referred to in the said letter. It however appears that such renewal application was made only on 22nd of June, 1987 (at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition). This application was however rejected by an order of the Licensing Authority, being order dated 10th July. 1987 at Annexure ‘C’ to the petition. Being aggrieved by this order of rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 12th August, 1987 and also filed an application for interim relief in the said appeal dated 13th August, 1987. However after hearing the parties, the appellate forum vacated the ad-interim stay granted earlier in that appeal, the order of vacating stay being dated 31st August, 1987. Ultimately, even the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 21st December, 1987 (at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition).
4. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging herein the concurrent orders of rejection of his application for renewal of the licence, at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that the impugned orders are illegal and contrary to the law inasmuch as the same are based on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant Rules, viz.., the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954. In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rules 102, 103, 104, 105 and 107.
6. Rule 102 contemplates an application to be made for obtaining the Cinema Licence and contemplates, in detail, the necessary information required to be furnished by the applicant in the said application. The said Rule specifically contemplates that the application shall be accompanied by (1) A true copy of the No Objection Certificate issued under Rule 6; (2) A true copy of the Building permission issued under Rule 93…; (3) A Certificate from an authorised architect or a qualified Engineer…; (4) A Certificate from the Government Electrical Inspector…; (5) A Certificate to the effect that there is no objection from the health point of view for the grant of a licence… (6) A Certificate from the Authority concerned that a telephone in working order….
Item No. 6 pertaining to the documents required to be furnished alongwith the application contemplated by the Rule 102, specifically indicates that nothing in Sub-rules (2), (5) and (6) shall apply to a Touring Cinema. Since the present petition admittedly is concerning a Touring Cinema, the aforesaid requirements may be deemed to be applicable to the petitioner’s case. However even in the case of Touring Cinema, a true copy of No Objection Certificate issued under Rule 6 contemplated by Sub-rule (1) shall be a necessary requirement.
Rule 103 contemplates the grant of Cinema Licence, where the documents and certificates referred to in Rule 102 have been produced and the Licensing Authority is satisfied that all the necessary rules have been complied with. Rules 104 confers absolute discretion to the Licensing Authority to refuse a Cinema Licence, if in his opinion, the specified conditions are not fulfilled.
7. We now come to the crux of the problem arising from the interpretation of Rule 107. The said Rule, in the first instance, only confers permissive powers to the Licensing Authority to grant the application for licence and the said power can, under no circumstances, be read to be an absolute mandate on the Licensing Authority, except perhaps where all the statutory requirements as regards the documents to be furnished, have been fulfilled. This Rule also carves out an exception in case where the application is for the renewal of a licence. In case where an application is for renewal, even then, such application is required to be made in the manner laid down in Rule 102, except that “it shall not be necessary to attach to the application for renewal, the true copy of the No Objection Certificate and the true copy of the Building Permission, unless specially required by the Licensing Authority”.
A plain reading of this part of the Rule clearly leads to the conclusion that where an application is for renewal, normally the applicant would not be required to attach with the application the two documents referred to in the said Rule, unless specially required by the Licensing Authority. Thus when the Licensing Authority specially calls upon the applicant, even where the application is for renewal, to produce the two documents in question by way of a special requirement, such requirements as to production must be met. If this requirement, as to production of the two documents is not met, it is obvious that the Licensing Authority has full discretion to reject the application. On a plain reading of this Rule, it is not possible to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Licensing Authority has no jurisdiction to call for the production of the two specified documents in question, particularly since the applicant had taken pains to demonstrate to the Licensing Authority that he was not in a position to produce such documents.
It may be that, due to personal circumstances of the applicant, he may not be in a position to furnish the documents sought for, and in particular, the No Objection Certificate contemplated by Rule 102, such No Objection Certificate having been characterised as the requisite certificate issued under Rule 6.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner emphathetically asserts that the petitioner is wholly dependent upon third parties for the purpose of obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate under Rule 6. If a third party so “conducts himself so as to raise an objection, and such objection comes in the way of the petitioner in his obtaining the necessary N. 0. C. within the meaning of Rule 6, such conduct of a third party should not be permitted to defeat the rights of the petitioner to obtain renewal. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is clearly erroneous, inasmuch as the same is contrary to the scheme of the Act and the Rules. Where the relevant Rules specifically contemplate production of such N. 0. C, the same must be produced or the consequence of non-production must be faced. It is not open to the petitioner to say that since be cannot prevail upon third parties not to raise any objection during the procedural hearing for obtaining the No Objection Certificate under Rule 6, the requirement of Rule 107 must be waived in his favour. To accept such a submission would clearly amount to over-riding the statutory provision of Rule 107 merely on the ground of expediency. Such an approach is contrary to all the canons of interpretation of statutes. This contention raised by the petitioner must therefore fail.
The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from the vice of mala fides. This submission in the form in which it is raised, is both vague and general in nature, and without any material particulars to sustain it. This contention raised in Para 11 of the petition indicates that the petitioner believes that when he was required to produce the requisite documents, during processing of his application for renewal of the licence, the same was an after-thought, with a view to harass the petitioner. This submission is not sustainable also in view of the averment made by the petitioner himself in the said paragraph. It is obvious, and also admitted, that the application for renewal was made on 22nd June, 1987 (at annexure ‘B’ to the petition). It was long before filing of this application that the Licensing Authority addressed a letter to the petitioner dt. 20th December, 1986 (at Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) pointing out that for the purpose of obtaining renewal, he would be required to file a renewal application accompanied by the requisite documents. Obviously therefore, the petitioner was informed six months prior to the actual date of his making an application that the requisite documents were required to be filed. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that asking him to produce the documents was an after-thought, merely with a view to harass him. This contention must also, therefore, fail.
8. No other contention has been raised.
In the premises aforesaid, all the contentions raised by the petitioner must rail. Consequently, the present petition requires to be rejected. Accordingly this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.